It's Turbo Time: Mazda Boosts the CX-30

by Tim Healey

Published: September 17th, 2020

If you ever thought, “Gee, I like this Mazda CX-30, but it could stand to offer a skoosh more power”, well, Mazda has news for you.

Yes, that’s right – “dude, you’re getting a turbo!”

The now available 2.5-liter four-cylinder turbo will make 250 horsepower and 320 lb-ft of torque when running premium (93 octane) fuel. If you’re running 87 octane, you cheapskate, you’ll drop to 227 ponies and 310 lb-ft.

Those numbers represent a big jump over the 186/186 presented by the 2.5-liter naturally-aspirated engine.

All-wheel drive is standard. Mazda didn’t mention a transmission, but it is likely to be the six-speed from the non-turbo CX-30.

Some new safety features will be available, too. Rear-cross traffic braking, traffic-jam assist, and a 360-degree camera among them.

The subcompact crossover’s exterior has specific changes for Turbo models. They will have 18-inch black aluminum-alloy wheels, larger tailpipes, gloss black door mirrors, and “Turbo” badging on the liftgate.

The 2021 Mazda CX-30 Turbo should be available by the end of 2020 (just like a coronavirus vaccine, hopefully). Pricing and details about specific trim/packaging options will be announced later.

Presumably, so will fuel economy numbers. Nothing is listed on the Environmental Protection Agency’s fuel-economy research site, as of yet.

A turbo CX-30 could end up being a fun little runabout, though the last one I tested ran through fuel fast. Not because of poor mpg, but because of a small fuel tank. A drive from Chicago to Detroit, around Detroit/Windsor, and back, required more refills than it should. A turbo will likely suck fuel even faster, but then again, the extra power will almost certainly be appreciated.

[Images: Mazda]

#2021MazdaCX-30 #CX-30 #Mazda #MazdaCX-30 #NewCars #Turbo #Turbos

Tim Healey

Tim Healey grew up around the auto-parts business and has always had a love for cars — his parents joke his first word was “‘Vette”. Despite this, he wanted to pursue a career in sports writing but he ended up falling semi-accidentally into the automotive-journalism industry, first at Consumer Guide Automotive and later at Web2Carz.com. He also worked as an industry analyst at Mintel Group and freelanced for About.com, CarFax, Vehix.com, High Gear Media, Torque News, FutureCar.com, Cars.com, among others, and of course Vertical Scope sites such as AutoGuide.com, Off-Road.com, and HybridCars.com. He’s an urbanite and as such, doesn’t need a daily driver, but if he had one, it would be compact, sporty, and have a manual transmission.

More by Tim Healey

Comments

Join the conversation

2 of 17 comments

Texasjack on Sep 17, 2020

Yummy. I like it.

Like Reply
Tankinbeans on Sep 17, 2020

I'm utterly ambivalent about fuel tank size as long as the fuel economy rating is high enough. I recall my 1995 Accord with its 17 gallon tank, one of the larger fuel tanks in a car I've owned. Given my habit of filling from half tank, something I picked up from my dad, I used to go in every 5 or 6 days. With my current car, what has a 12.7 gallon tank, I'm in every 4 or 5 days. It doesn't bother me much considering I like to buy a bottle of pop often enough and stopping for the extra 5 minutes isn't too much of a hassle to me. What I've noticed is that in adverts there will be a more prominently quoted range for a given vehicle, with no real reference to tank size. "Our vehicle, X, has a 350 range while its competitor, vehicle Y, only has a 300 range." This often hides that vehicle X gets 20 mpg out of 17.5 gallons, while vehicle Y gets 30 mpg out of 10 gallons***. All things equal I'd take vehicle Y with the shorter range, but better mileage. ***Numbers being pulled directly from the fundament for illustrative purposes only.

Like Reply

Recent Comments

Akear Does anyone care how the world's sixth largest carmaker conducts business. Just a quarter century ago GM was the world's top carmaker. [list=1][*]Toyota Group: Sold 10.8 million vehicles, with a growth rate of 4.6%.[/*][*]Volkswagen Group: Achieved 8.8 million sales, growing sharply in America (+16.6%) and Europe (+20.3%).[/*][*]Hyundai-Kia: Reported 7.1 million sales, with surges in America (+7.9%) and Asia (+6.3%).[/*][*]Renault Nissan Alliance: Accumulated 6.9 million sales, balancing struggles in Asia and Africa with growth in the Americas and Europe.[/*][*]Stellantis: Maintained the fifth position with 6.5 million sales, despite substantial losses in Asia.[/*][*]General Motors, Honda Motor, and Ford followed closely with 6.2 million, 4.1 million, and 3.9 million sales, respectively.[/*][/list=1]
THX1136 A Mr. J. Sangburg, professional manicurist, rust repairer and 3 times survivor is hoping to get in on the bottom level of this magnificent property. He has designs to open a tea shop and used auto parts store in the facility as soon as there is affordable space available. He has stated, for the record, "You ain't seen anything yet and you probably won't." Always one for understatement, Mr. Sangburg hasn't been forthcoming with any more information at this time. You can follow the any further developments @GotItFiguredOut.net.
TheEndlessEnigma And yet government continues to grow....
TheEndlessEnigma Not only do I not care about the move, I do not care about GM....gm...or whatever it calls itself.
Redapple2 As stated above, gm now is not the GM of old. They say it themselves without realizing it. New logo: GM > gm. As much as I dislike my benefactor (gm spent ~ $200,000 on my BS and MS) I try to be fair, a smart business makes timely decisions based on the reality of the current (and future estimates) situation. The move is a good one.